The Bf 109 T-2.
The Emil is lighter than the F4 so it has superior acceleration, climb rate and turn performance. The T-2 turns even better than the Emil so BR 3.0 at Rank 2 is inappropriate. It should be upgraded to Rank 3 BR 4.0
There’s a pretty well known set of them in Ukraine that required a couple missiles to down, and I’m talking direct hits.
More commonly, they’re more allergic to 30mm cannons than most other weapons systems.
Hell, the mi-24s were designed to brush off 12.7mm round at a distance of 500m or greater.
However the mi-24s were being taken out more reliably due to missile hits
KA-50 is pretty much the same as the 52, different cockpit.
Check my previous comment.
Exception not the rule
1 Like
It’s pretty common knowledge they’re being downed more so to auto cannon fire.
Not an exception, commonality
No magic era ? I guess m60 tts is screwed, same with the Rise. Oh and the conq mk-2
dw 17pdr also cant… even tho it was the most powerful allied anti tank gun.
dont worry though. the russian 85mm can sneak them through pretty consistent
3 Likes
no thats nonsense, vast majority of ka52s were downed by missiles, its a minority that managed to survive, exception not the rule
3 Likes
You haven’t been there so you legitimately have no way of knowing.
Mate no aircraft is tanky full stop ka52s fall down if the sky all the time they arent made to resist missiles, theyre made to shield the pilots not the plane.
With what do you expect tanking missiles? With what armor?
1 Like
MiG-29
said noone ever
Said the charts in the manual actually.
The Russian mains managed to get gaijin to make the instantaneous turn rate the sustained turn rate.
It pulls and sustains about 1 G more than it should on average
Well obviously you must be a KA-52 pilot fighting in Ukraine with that comment.
1 Like
F14 obviously as its never gotten major buff and still has good KDs even though its has a terrible kit
Spoiler
this is sarcasm
F14 over performing?!
Nerf prince of wales to 8.3
1 Like
both legacy and super hornet
Nah, the issue is that:
- Wooden planes are as sturdy as full metal planes (which makes no sense)
- Damage to fuel tanks is very badly modeled
Explosive shells have very little effect on the structure of metal planes in reality.
Their killing power comes from fragments and incendiary content they carry.
Explosives and incendiary bullets and shells should be quite lethal to the structure of wooden planes while against metal planes only Mineshells can inflict serious damage.
Another issue comes from the fact that pilots can survive two or three LMG bullet hits, which makes no sense and makes explosive shell fragments very weak in comparison.
Even .50cal bullets require a second hit to be lethal.
Fuel tanks barely start leaking fuel when they could only self-seal around 30% of 12.7cal API hits at best.
20mm HEFI should be very effective in causing lethal fuel fires and 20mm AP at the very least should cause fuel leaks that puts you on a timer, in addition to make it easier for compound fuel fires from other hits.
Right now, every 20mm explosive shell hits like a 30mm Mineshell, which makes actually Mineshells redundant and the use of AP rounds unnecessary.
Both bombers and fighters are so easy to destroy that additional guns no longer have any benefit and just kill your flight performance.
Remember when MG 151/20 gun pods on the Bf 109 G-2 where an advantage?
MK 108 gun pods useful for targeting bombers?
20mm IT shells are as lethal as 7mm Ball and 20mm Incendiary, which is only available on like one or two cannons, actually deals zero damage.
More and more vehicles get added but the damage model hasn’t received a single update.
When something doesn’t work like it should, Gaijin builds a workaround instead of improving the system so it does work.
1 Like
Quite interesting. The only downside I see if they implement it is that I think SPAAs with 20mm cannons would have a pretty bad time against aircraft, right? Since they would need more shots, while the aircraft can destroy the SPAA in a single pass of one second.